The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Discuss.
Personally, I thought he was all right, did well with the situations he was put in most of the time.
> Isn't that what we wanted? Who did you guys want to win? Brown
> and Labour? The SNP?
>
> Dave doesn't have to join with Lib Dems now, he can go ahead
> with a minority government now?
>
He doesn't 'have to' if he gets agreement, but he has. Which means some Lib Dem members in the cabinet. Will help to balance things a little, but still have an uneasy feeling about the blues sitting there making decisions.
Schools, for a start, will suffer if they change the curriculum just after Labour have spent thousands producing what was thought by teachers as a step forward in the new National Curriculum. Unfortunately it hadn't passed the House of Lords before the change of government and the Conservatives have threatened to move back to a system which definitely didn't and won't work.
> Isn't that what we wanted? Who did you guys want to win? Brown
> and Labour?
I certainly didn't want David Cameron moving into No 10. I knew Brown wouldn't last more than four months in office if he had been elected, but if he wasn't to be chucked I still would've voted for him.
Machie,that cat is mental.Reminded me of Mr.Bitey from Kick Ass :)
Dave doesn't have to join with Lib Dems now, he can go ahead with a minority government now?
Also what's wrong with this cat? Don't break his favourite glass.
The wrong thing is, even though we want them to have a say (or rather a large proportion of the country do) they won't when it matters, as they don't have the seats.
All they have a say about is the current situation, which is limited at best.
The media have been banging on for ages about the way that the British public are sick of adversarial politics, but - as soon as politicians have to start having to talk to form a consensus - it's denounced by the media as chaos and it starts screaming like a hysterical child: WHY ISN'T THERE A DECISON NOW? WAAAH!!!!!
What do they think the public really want? A well-planned coalition agreement that could form a stable government in the coming year(s) or something hastily thrown together so that they can announce a winner TODAY (whether it will fall apart in 5 minutes or not).
Personally, I think that a hung parliament could prove to be an excellent result. A coalition government will have to take into account the viewpoint and values of many more voters (say around 60% for a Con-Lib coalition, or slightly less for a Lab-Lib based coalition). This would mean that a grown-up consensus will needed for crucial decisions and that more controversial decisions that split the public may have to be toned down. Surely this is more democratically accountable than giving all the power to a party that musters only around 35% of the vote?
> Alfonse wrote:
> pb wrote:
> some people find it hard to see how it could benefit
> politics as it does in many other countries to have a shared
> Government. Changes to the voting system may make it even more
> likely to happen in future.
>
> The only shared government I have ever studied intensely was
> the
> Weimar government, and we all know how that turned out.
>
> So I'd love to drop my prejudices but it just sounds
> inefficient.
>
> Isn't that like someone from the south saying the only person
> from the North they know is a thief so they all must be the same?
No, I'm just saying that people on both sides probably don't understand the impact of shared government.